POS 6427: Congressional Politics Fall, 2014

Professor Larry Dodd

Outline*

Week One: Class Organization: Cancelled for SPSA Convention

Part I: The Post War Congress: A Historical/Developmental Perspective

Week Two: Studying Congress in the Post War Era: January 16th

Week Three: The Era of Committee Government: January 23rd

Week Four: Race, the Solid South, and Coalition Politics in Congress January 30th

Week Five: Modified Committee Government February 6th

Week Six: Reforming and Transforming Congress: Toward Party Government Feb 13th

Week Seven: The Post-Reform Congress and the Rise of Conditional Party Government Feb 20th

Week Eight: Taking Politics to the Extreme: The Republican Revolution and Democratic Response, 1994-2014 February 27th

Week Nine: Spring Break: No Class – First Research Design

Part II: Understanding Congress Across The Postwar Era: A Topical Perspective

Week Ten: Legislative Careers and Member Behavior March 13th

Week Eleven: Candidates, Consituencies, Representation and Elections, March 20th

Week Twelve: Parties and Committees, March 27th

Week Thirteen: Contrasting the House and Senate, April 3rd

Week Fourteen: Politics and Policy, April 10th

Week Fifteen: Research Week, April 17th

Week Sixteen: Research Design Discussion: Potluck at Anderson/Dodd Farm April 24th

, No Final Exam: An Extended Research Design Due at the End of Finals Week

This outline is subject to experimentation and alteration.

This short statement is intended to provide an overview of the course, in lieu of the cancelled class meeting on January 9th.

I. The Focus of This Course:

1. This course focuses on understanding the Post World War II Congress – that is, the Congress from roughly 1946 to the present (with some works reaching back prior to 1946 in order to provide historical perspective). It is intended to provide you a doctoral-level introduction to the Post World War II Congress, to aid in fostering your research on the Congress, and to prepare you for doctoral level prelims.

It is a sister course to my doctoral seminar on American Legislative Development, which is primarily concerned with the evolution of Congress and American legislatures in general from the colonial/revolutionary and early founding period to World War II (with a limited focus on the postwar developments).

3. The syllabus for this course, “Congress: The Post World War Two Era” is in development and will unfold during the first several weeks. It is undergoing a significant revision in order to reflect recent developments in Congress, newer research on the Congress, and the like.

4. A major thrust of the course will be to try to understand how the highly polarized and uncivil politics of the current period emerged in Congress; how this move to polarized and uncivil politics is reshaping the politics, policymaking and role of Congress; and what the prospects are for these conditions to continue.

5. Along the way we will also consider whether in fact current conditions are worse than the conditions of the early to mid Post War Era, or possibly just different forms of recurring problems that legislatures like the Congress always face. That would make a great prelim question and/or dissertation topic . To aid with this question we will read the 1967 Prologue and first four chapters of James MacGregor Burns’ book, Deadlock of Democracy. I attach the Prologue and Chapter One to give you a head-start on this book and topic. It is on reserve in the Library.

II. The Objectives of the Course:

1. I see the course as doing several things. First, it will introduce you to the major electoral, organizational, political and institutional changes that have characterized Congress across the Post-World War II era. During this period Congress moved from the Committee Era of the early postwar years to the Liberal Democratic Reform Era of the 1970s and then to the current Party Government Era. It is essential to ‘see’ and understand these shifts because the way in

which Congress operates – including the character of the policy process and the roles of parties and committees – have shifted significantly across these periods.

An obvious prelim question from this historical portion of the course is: Chart the evolution of Congress across the postwar era, explain why it has changed as it has, discuss the consequences these changes have had for the capacity of Congress to respond to governing challenges posed by ongoing changes in the societal and global environment, and, finally, assess likely directions for change in Congress into mid-21st century.

2. Simultaneously the course will introduce you to the evolution of post-war scholarship on the Congress. You thus will read original works (mainly articles/essays) by such authors as Burns, Cooper, Dexter, Fenno, Galloway, Huitt, Jones, Key, Ripley, and the like who laid the foundations for the contemporary study of the U. S. Congress as a scholarly subfield within American Political Science (and some of whom continue to write up to the present time). You will find their work insightful and stimulating. Then you will also read the later scholars who charted the evolution of Congress beyond the committee government era, including such luminaries as Binder, Cox, Evans, Fiorina, Lee, Mann, Mayhew, McCubbins, Ornstein, Oppenheimer, Rohde, Schickler, Shepsle, Smith, Stewart, and many others. And you will read essays discussing the changing character of postwar scholarship.

One obvious prelim question from this focus of the course is: Discuss and assess the extent to which the seeds of our understanding of the contemporary Congress, including styles, methods, and explanatory arguments, were laid in the early postwar era scholarship, and to what extent there is a qualitative difference in the nature of scholarship in later decades. Having presented your general perspective on this issue, to what extent are these similarities and/or differences explained by the constancy/change of Congress as an institution across these decades and to what extent are they explained by other factors (being careful to identify the other factors and how/why they served to research congressional research). Finally, as we move from the scholarly approaches of the early postwar period to those of the later period, what has been gained and what has been lost in our ability to understand and explain Congress,. What implications does your answer have for young scholars such as yourself as you seek to study the Congress or other representative assemblies, looking to the future. How best might one think of crafting a scholarly career and research focus during the coming forty years or so?

3. Third, the course will introduce you to the literature on different dimensions of postwar scholarship, with a special focus on the contemporary period. These dimensions of scholarship will include:a. the shifting role and power of parties versus committees in Congress; b. differences between the politics of the Senate versus that of the House of Representatives; c. the dynamic character of elections, constituencies and representation in Congress; d. the shifting nature and current character of legislative careers in Congress, including in this the emergence of a significant presence of and leadership roles for women and ethnic/racial minorities in Congress;e. the shifting role of the American South in congressional politics;f. the evolving nature of the legislative process in Congress; and g. the factors and conditions shaping the productivity and policy responsiveness of Congress.

One obvious prelim questions for this portion of the course would be to address the controversies, oversights, confusions and contributions in explanation, understanding and research that characterize scholarship in one or more of these areas and to provide/defend your perspective on these issues.

4. Fourth, the course will provide you the opportunity to craft research designs and early research contributions to the study of Congress, or the study of other representative assemblies of interest to you, as informed by the reading and discussion of this course. The course will require a research (design) paper, which can serve as a precursor for a dissertation prospectus or for convention papers and parties/essays on Congress or other representative assemblies.

5. I very much hope this summary provides a helpful overview of the course, so that you will not be left in the dark with the cancellation of the meeting on January 9th. We will of course discuss all of this on January 16th. Do come to that class on the 16th having read all the material for Week 2, sent out your email assignments on January 15th, and ready for an extensive discussion of the readings and email assignments in our class meeting.

I will of course answer any remaining questions you have about the class in the meeting on January 16th.

All the best, Larry

I. The PostWar Congress: A Historical/Developmental Perspective

Week Two: Studying Congress in the PostWar Era: January 16th:

1. Studying Legislatures

Gerhard Loewenberg, On Legislatures: Eric Redman, The Dance of Legislation: David Mayhew, Congress: The Electoral ConnectionLawrence Dodd, “Congress as Public Mirror,” In Dodd, Thinking about Congress,” pp. 3- 6

2. Studying Congress: Constitutional Foundations

James MacGregor Burns, The Deadlock of Democracy, 1967 Prologue and Chs. 1-4Hamilton, Jay and Madison, The Federalist Papers, 10, 11, 14, 45, 47, 48, 49, 51, 53 and

others that interest youCharles Stewart, Analyzing Congress, Chapter Two Dodd, “Congress as Public Mirror,” pp. 6-13; 39-41

3. Studying Congress Across Time and Space

David Mayhew, America’s Congress, Chapters 1, 2, and pp. 181-184 (on the South in Congress)McCarty, Poole and Rosenthal, Polarized America, Chapter 1Charles Stewart, Analyzing Congress, Chapter ThreeDodd, “Congress as Public Mirror,” pp. 13-25

4. Studying the Post World War II Congress

Julian Zelizer, On Capitol Hill, Chapter One: “Transforming Congress”Dodd, “Congress as Public Mirror,” pp. 25-29Dodd and Oppenheimer, Congress Reconsidered, 9th edition:

Chapter Eighteen, “Congressional Politics in a Time of Crisis,” by D andODodd and Oppenheimer, Congress Reconsidered, 10th edition :

Chapter Eighteen, “Congress at the Precipice,” by D and OThomas Mann and Norman Ornstein, It’s Even Worse than It Looks, pp. lx-103 Email assignments :

Please send Professor Dodd and all class members short discussions on both by 5 pm, Jan. 15th:

1. What do you find most interesting about The Dance of Legislation, why, and with what implications for our study of Congress this semester and/or your research on Congress?

2. Leaving aside Redman’s book, what other perspective or set of perspectives do you find most intriguing or interesting or provocative, why, and with what implications for our study of Congress this semester and/or your research on Congress?

Week Three: The Era of Committee Government: January 23

a. Overview Perspectives

Julian Zelizer, On Capitol Hill, 14-47Dodd and Schott, Congress and the Administrative State, Preface and Chapters 1-3 James MacGregor Burns, Congress on Trial: Preface and Chs 1-5, 7, 8, 10, 11 (Think of Burns’

wonderful little book as a1949 version of Mann and Ornstein, “It’s Even WorseThan It Looks”)

Strongly Recommended:

George Galloway, “The Operation of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946”, APSR, Vol. 45, March 1951: see also Galloway, Congress at the Crossroads.

Nelson Polsby, “The Institutionalization of the U. S. House of Representatives,” APSR, 1968, pp. 144-168 (from the “American Legislative Development” seminar)

Joseph Cooper and David Brady, “Institutional Context and Leadership Style: The House fromCannon to Rayburn,” APSR, June 1981: 411-425. ((from the “ALD” seminar)

b. Personalities and Special Developments: Encyclopedia of the U. S. Congress, Reserve Room, Library West (read at least five of these; enjoy)

“Dwight D. Eisenhower,” Volume 2 “Charles A. Halleck,” Volume 2“William F. Knowland” Volume 3“Joseph McCarthy,” Volume 3“Joseph W. Martin, Jr.” Volume 3“Sam Rayburn,” Volume 3 “Margaret Chase Smith,” Volume 4“Robert A. Taft” Volume 4“Harry S. Truman, Volume 4

“Bricker Amendment” Volume 1“Kefauver Crime Committee” Volume 3“Korean War”, Volume 3 “Interstate Highway System” Volume 3

c. Systematic Research on the Early Post WW II Congress

i. The Senate

Robert A. Caro, Master of the Senate. This is the third volume in Caro’s biography of LBJ, entitled: The Years of Lyndon Johnson.

Required: “Introduction” and Chapter ThreeStrongly recommended: Chapters One and Two

Ralph K. Huitt, “The Congressional Committee: A Case Study,” APSR, XLVIII, June, 1954, pp. 340-365. Also in Huitt and Peabody, Congress: Two Decades of Analysis

Huitt, “The Morse Committee Assignment Controversy: A Study in Senate Norms,” APSR LI, June, 1957-33-329. Also in Huitt and Peabody, Congress: Two Decades of Analysis.

Huitt, “Democratic Party Leadership in the Senate,” APSR, LV (June, 1961), 331-344; also inHuitt and Peabody, Congress: Two Decades of Analysis.

Donald R. Matthews, U. S. Senators and Their World, Ch, 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10Rowland Evans and Robert Novak, “The Johnson System” in Lyndon B. Johnson: The Exercise

of Power, pp. 988-118; reprinted in Lawrence K. Pettit and Edward Keynes, The Legislative Process in the U. S. Senate.

ii. The House of Representatives

Galloway, History of the House of Representatives, Chs. 5; strongly recommended: 6, 8, 9, 10Lewis Anthony Dexter, “The Representative and His District,” in Robert Peabody and Nelson

Polsby, New Perspectives on the House of Representatives, 2nd and 3rd Edition (third edition should be on reserve in the Library).

Nicholas Masters, “Committee Assignments,” APSR LV, June 1961, 345-57; also in 2nd edition Peabody and Polsby.

Richard F. Fenno, Jr., “The House of Representatives and Federal Aid to Education,”in Peabody and Polsby, New Perspectives on the House of Representatives, 2nd Edition

Charles O. Jones, “The Agriculture Committee and the Problem of Representation,” APSR, LV,June, 1961; also in Peabody and Polsby, New Perspectives, 2nd edition and 3rd edition.

d: The Legislative Process and Possibilities for Reform and Change:

Stephen K Bailey, Congress Makes a Law, at least the Preface and Chapters 3,4,5,7 and 12Bertram Gross, The Legislative Struggle, Chapters 4, 5, 20, 21

Email Questions: Write short responses to both of these questions and email them to Professor Dodd and the class:

1.General Assignment: Compare and contrast Burns’ argument in Congress on Trial about the problems faced by Congress in the late 1940s with Mann and Ornstein’s argument in It’s Even Worse Than It Looks with respect to the problems of today’s politics. What do you see as the implications of this comparison/contrast for how we understand Congress?

2. Individual Assignment:

a. How and why did committee government arise in Congress, how was it linked to the rise of administrative state, what were its benefits and drawbacks, and what challenges was it facing as the Post World War II era progressed, as portrayed in Dodd and Schott, Chs 1, 2 and 3; Zelizer, pp. 14-47 ?__Rolda___b. What did constituency politics look like in Congress, as scholars began to study it, and what implications did their analysis appear to have for the understanding of Congress emerging at the

time? Burns, Ch 1; Dexter; Matthews, Ch 10__Chris___ (Note: Dexter’s pioneering essay is available in the third edition of Peabody and Polsby, New Perspectives on the House of Representatives, which should be on reserve in Library West).c. What were scholars expecting to see as they began to study committee politics in the 1950s, what did they actually see (Huitt, 1954), and what additional or conflictive conclusions did they begin to develop from their actual observation and research? Huitt, 1954; Jones, 1961; Fenno, 1962,_Brandon___d. What did the party system look like in the late 1940s and 1950s, as informed by McCarty, Poole and Rosenthal’s research on party system polarization and discussed in particular by Burns and Gross? What controversies, differing perspectives and alternative proposals for reform characterized discussions of party system politics of the era, as summarized and assessed in particular by Gross, Chapter 4, 5?___Charlie___e. What did the Senate as a workplace look like in the 1950s, in terms of its members, their way of life, and the folkways they followed, as portrayed in the research of Matthews, Chs 3, 4, 5; Huitt, 1957?___Ross___f. As seen in Bailey’s mid-1950 book, Congress Makes a Law, and Fenno’s 1962 study of the House of Representatives and Federal Education Policy, what did the general policymaking process look like in Congress in the committee era?___Kevin___g. What did Senate leadership look like in the mid-to-late 1950s, as contrasted with earlier times, and what was the effect of Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson on its policymaking capacities and longer-term evolution, as discussed in Caro, Huitt, 1961; Matthews, Ch 6; Evans and Novak?___Keith___

Week Four: Race, the Solid South and Coalition Government, 1937-1965: January 30th

a. Race, Authoritarianism, and the Solid South

V. O. Key, Southern Politics in State and Nation Chs. 1 and pp. 15-18; Chs 13, 14 and pp. 315-16; Chs. 15, 16, 17 and pp. 489-490; Chs. 23, 24 and pp. 531-532; and Chs 29, 30, 31.

Edward Gibson, Boundary Control: Subnational Authoritarianism in Federal Democracies, Chs 1, 2, 3

“Southern Bloc” and “Southern Manifesto” in The Encyclopedia of the U. S. Congress, Vol. 4.John Manley, “The Conservative Coalition in Congress.” Slight variations on this essay are

contained in Dodd and Oppenheimer, Congress Reconsidered, 1st edition, 1977; Peabody and Polsby, New Perspectives, 3rd edition, 1977; and American Behavioral Scientist 17:2 (1973): 223-247.

“Voting Rights Act of 1965,” Encyclopedia of the U.S. Congress, Volume 4 RequiredCivil Rights Act of 1964” Encyclopedia of the U. S. Congress Volume 1 RequiredZelizer, On Capitol Hill, 47-62

b.Personalities, etc.“The following short essays in the Encyclopedia of the U. S. Congress are strongly recommended:

“Everett McKinley Dirksen”, Volume 2“Hubert Humphrey,” Volume 2“Sam Rayburn,” Volume 3“Richard B. Russell,” Volume 3“Howard W. Smith,” Volume 4

c. The Push for Civil Rights Legislations: 1956-1960

Polsby, How Congress Evolves, Preface and pages 3 - 30Caro, Master of the Senate, Chapters 40 and 41Daniel M. Berman, A Bill Becomes a Law: The Civil Rights Act of 1960: allMiller and Stokes, “Constituency Influence in Congress, American Political

Science Review, Vol LVII, # 1, March. 1963; Peabody and Polsby, 2nd ed.

d. The Push for Civil Rights and Voting Rights Legislation, 1961-1965

Polsby, How Congress Evolves, pp. 30-59Robert Peabody, “The Enlarged House Rules Committee,” and Cummings and Peabody, “The

Decision to Enlarge the House Rules Committee, in Peabody and Polsby, New Perspectives on the House of Representatives, 1st edition.

“Adam Clayton Powell,” Encyclopedia of the U. S. Congress Volume 3Robert Mann, The Walls of Jericho: Lyndon Johnson, Hubert Humphrey, Richard Russell

and the Struggle for Civil Rights, Chs 1, 2 and 15 to 20 are required.

Carmines and Stimson, Issue Evolution, Preface and Chs 1, 2, 3

e. Longer-term Perspectives and Explanations

Carmines and Stimson, Issue Evolution, Preface and Chapter 8Polsby, How Congress Evolves, Chapter FiveEarl Black, “The Newest Southern Politics,” Journal of Politics, 60 1998), 591-612Byron Shafer and Richard Johnston, The End of Southern Exceptionalism, Chs 1Seth McKee, Republican Ascendancy in U. S. House Elections, Ch 1.

Strongly Recommended:

Robert Mann, The Walls of Jericho: Lyndon Johnson, Hubert Humphrey, Richard Russelland the Struggle for Civil Rights. The remainder of the book is recommended,

particularly Chs, 21 to 24 (on the Voting Rights Act) and the Epilogue “Civil Rights,” Encyclopedia of the U. S. Congress Volume 1James Patterson, Congressional Conservatism and the New Deal, 1967, in the ALD syllabus

Prelim-Type Thought Questions for Class Discussion.

a. what were the basic mechanisms the traditional South used to maintain its leveragein Congress (V. O. Key; Edward Gibson), how did the legislation enacted from 1956 to 1965 address these mechanisms in ways that weakened the leverage of the traditional South (essays on Voting Rights and Civil Rights legislation in Encyclopedia), why had it taken so long to generate this success (Southern strategy/tactics?, congressional organizational/structure?, party/factional calculations and alliances? others?), and what were the four or five basic reasons Congress succeeded in passing this legislation (social movements?, voters, elections and political shifts? societal, technological and cultural change? leadership and career ambitions within Congress? Organizational shifts/reforms in Congress, others). What do you see these processes and results telling us about Congress and American politics? Do these lessons have any broader implications beyond the areas of civil rights and voting rights?

b. what does Edward Gibson mean by subnational authoritarianism and boundary control in federal democracies and do you believe these concepts are now irrelevant to the study of Congress and American politics, moving into the future? Alternatively, could old patterns reemerge or new issues and conflicts arise within the United States that generate new forms of subnational authoritarianism (or something somewhat analogous in political implications and future struggles with boundary control? Push yourself to be as specific and foresighted as you can be in thinking through this question.

c. In what ways did the developments from 1956 to 1966 in the area of Civil Rights and Voting Rights lay foundations and generate social, economic, institutional and political

processes that upended historic patterns of Congressional Politics and laid the foundations for new developments in Congress over the coming forty years?

Email Assignments:

a. what were the basic mechanisms the traditional South used to maintain its regional dominance in the South and political leverage in Congress, as detailed by V. O. Key. __Lee__

b. what is subnational authoritarianism, how is it related to boundary control, and why can this be particularly relevant to federal democracies, particularly the U. S.? ___Ross___

c. what was the conservative coalition, why did it exist, how influential was it in Congress, why did it collapse and what does its existence, influence and demise tell us about the conditions that can undercut polarized two party politics in the United States?__Chris___

d. Do you believe that civil and voting rights for African Americans would have emerged looking roughly the same by the mid 1960s – or weaker or stronger -- if Lyndon Johnson had not become Majority Leader in the Senate and then President (Caro, Mann, Walls of Jericho, etc)? Or would just any Majority Leader/President have been as effective, or more effective, given the social movements, political calculations and socio—economic forces of the era? Does the black box of legislative leadership and policy process matter or is its output simply the product of the forces operating on it?__Rolda__

e. What were the institutional challenges and roadblocks faced by the Civil Rights Act of 1960, what was their effect on the legislation, and what does their existence and role at that time tell us about policymaking in Congress at mid-twentieth century (Berman)?__Brandon__

f. What is issue evolution, what is its relevance to our study of Congress, the South and civil and voting rights legislation in Congress? How might the concept help us understand developments since the mid 1960s in Congress and American politics?_Kevin_

g. What were V. O. Key’s major arguments and contributions, from the standpoint of Shafer and Johnston, and how do Shafer/Johnston confirm, challenge, add to and/or move beyond Key in their arguments about exceptionalism and the American South? And what is McKee’s challenge to them (including in your assessment pp. 187-203 in McKee’s book? What is your own take on the exceptionalism of the American South, then and now?___Charles___

Week Five: Modified Committee Government (late 1950s to early 1970s) Feb 7

Below is the central reading for this week. All students are expected to read all of Fenno, Congressmen in Committees, as the most critical reading of the week . The additional reading below is given three stars (***) for the material most critical to this week’s themes, two stars (**) for items to read that are very important to this weeks themes, and one star for items to read as time and interest permit this week or down the line at some point.

a. Overview Perspectives

***Zelizer, On Capitol Hill, 53-91**Truman, “Introduction” and Chapter Eight , “Prospects for Change” in Truman, Congress

and America’s Future: the 1965 edition (the first).***Huntington, “Congressional Responses to the 20th Century,” in Truman, 1965.**Dodd and Schott, Congress and the Administrative State, Pages 86-112. (If you have not yet

finished them, continue reading the Introduction and Chs 1-3.*** James Sundquist, Politics and Policy: The Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson Years, Ch.

1,12

b. Elections

***H. Douglas Price, “The Electoral Arena” in Truman, 1965.**Warren Miller and Donald Stokes, read both: “Constituency Influence in Congress,” APSR,

Volume LVII, #1, March, 1963; and “Party Government and the Salience of Congress,” Public Opinion Quarterly 26 (1962), pp. 531-546.

*If you have not read Mayhew’s work on the ‘declining marginals’ and Fiorina’s work on the case work thesis, either read Fiorina, Congress: Keystone to the Washington Establishment or read the following two articles: Mayhew, “Congressional Elections: The Case of the Vanishing Marginals,” Polity, 6:3 (1974): 295-317; and Morris Fiorina, “The Case of the Vanishing Marginals: the Bureaucracy Did It,” APSR 71 (March 1977): 171-81.

c. The House and Senate

***Fenno, “The Internal Distribution of Influence,” in Truman,1965***Huitt, “The Internal Distribution of Influence,” in Truman, 1965**Fenno, “The House Appropriations Committees as a Political System: The Problem

of Integration,” APSR, 56 (June, 1962): 310-24*“Southern Bloc” and “Southern Manifesto” in The Encyclopedia of the U. S. Congress, Vol. 4.**John Manley, “The Conservative Coalition in Congress.” Slight variations on this essay are

contained in Dodd and Oppenheimer, Congress Reconsidered, 1st edition, 1977; Peabody and Polsby, New Perspectives, 3rd edition, 1977; and American Behavioral Scientist 17:2 (1973): 223-247.

d. Policy process

*Theodore Lowi, “ American Business, Public Policy, Case-Studies, and Political Theory,” World Politics 16 (July, 1964): 677-715; and “Four Systems of Policy, Politics, and Choice,” Public Administration Review 32 July/August, 1972): 298-310.

*Franklin and Ripley, Congress, the Bureaucracy, and Public Policy, (various editions), Ch. 1.*Essays in Truman, 1965, by Harvey Mansfield (Economic Policy) and Holbert Carroll

(National Security Policy) *Sundquist, Politics and Policy, Part One

e, Congress and the Executive

**Neustadt, “Politicians and Bureaucrats,” in Truman, 1965. f. putting it all together

****Fenno, Congressmen in Committees: All Chapters Required***Sundquist, Politics and Policy, Chapter 12 required. All of Part II is recommended.

g. Theoretical Frames and Research Traditions, 1946 to 1970s

***Peabody, “Research on Congress: A Coming of Age” in Huitt and Peabody, Congress: Two Decades of Analysis.

**Cooper, The Origins of the Standing Committees and the Development of the Modern House, in Rice University Studies, Vol 56, #3, Summer 1970, Part III.

*Rieselbach, “Introduction: Congress as a Political System,” in Rieselbach, The Congressional System

*Mayhew, Congress: The Electoral Connection: If you still have not read this classic, do so now.

Email 1: Identify the core arguments Fenno develops in Congressmen in Committees, discuss how and why his core arguments vary by committee, and assess the implications of these arguments for the general nature and character of congressional policymaking in a committee-centric era akin to the late 1950s to the early 1970s. How relevant might his arguments be, or at least his strategy of inquiry, to the contemporary Congress? What might you expect to find that would be similar/different?

a. In addressing this question, be sure to make clear what “strategic premises” are, how they are related to goals and environment, and the differential ways in which they shape decision-making processes, and consequent decisions across congressional committees.

b. Also address the ways in which the decision-making processes are similar and different across the House and Senate, and also the ways in which the outcomes associated with them might generate change in policymaking within a committee across time.

c. Ge sure to assess the implications Fenno’s analysis has for Congress as a whole, including its operation and policy power, in a committee-centric era.

d. Finally, if you redid Fenno today how would the end product be similar/different and why?

Email 2: Individual assignments:

a. What was Samuel Huntington’s argument in “Congressional Responses to the Twentieth Century,” and what were the implications of his arguments for scholarly understanding of and the nation’s perspective on the Congress? Looking back, what lessons should the scholarly community and nation-at-large learn today from Huntington’s arguments?___Keith____

b. What were the major changes that characterized Congress and American politics as it during the Modified Committee Government era, as detailed by Dodd and Schott and Zelizer, that allowed a period of Congressional Liberalism to emerge in Congress and use committees and Congress to shape public policy?____Brandon_________

c. Detail the arguments Miller and Stokes make about American voters/citizens (as captured in research data from 1958) in their two classic essays on “Constituency Influence” and “the salience of Congress”, consider the implications these arguments had for how scholars thought about citizens/voters in the Modified Committee Government era, and assess what interpretive tendencies or biases these perspectives might have built into congressional studies as Congress moved beyond the Modified Committee Government era during the 1970s and on to the contemporary period. Do you believe that similar type of studies would reach the same conclusions about today’s citizen/voters? Why or why not?____Rolda_____

d. Compare and contrast the perspective that Fenno and Huitt provide us on the distribution of influence in the House versus the Senate in the Modified Committee Government Era (including Fenno’s perspective in “Committee Integration”) and the implications of this pattern of influence for the two chambers, for policymaking, and for the power of Congress.__Kevin__

e. What was the Conservative Coalition, why did it exist, how influential was it in Congress, why did it collapse and what does its existence, influence and demise tell us about the conditions that can undercut polarized two party politics in the United States?__Chris___

f. Compare and contrast the perspectives on change Congress and provided by Truman and Neustadt in their 1965 essays (probably written in 1963 or early 1964) with the perspective on change provided by Sundquist in Chapter 1 and Chapter 12 in Politics and Policy. In what ways are they similar and in what ways different? Why? In so far as they are different, how and why can perspectives on change undergo such change in only three years and what might contemporary scholars learn from this in assessing Congress/representative assemblies in the contemporary era, or at other times?___Ross___

g. What were the major characteristics of the research traditions and theoretical frames that characterized the early postwar period of research, what were the assets and limits/ gains and losses, associated with these traditions, and are there things that today’s research community can learn by looking back – both good, bad and neutral, so to speak – from these early traditions and research endeavors?___Charlie___

Week Six: Feb. 13: Reforming and Transforming Congress: The 1970s

This week focuses on the Reform Era of the 1970s. Following weeks will focus on the ways in which Congress evolved in the post-reform era from the late 1970s to the contemporary period. The effort will be to develop an overview picture of this forty-four year period of change, seeing its developments in real time as scholars sought to chart the changes and make sense of them. In examining the emerging perspectives in real time we will rely on the ten editions of Congress Reconsidered, the first published in 1977. These editions provide a unique continuous lens into contemporaneous developments in Congress during this period and the emerging perspectives on it. Additional perspective will come from works based on retrospective and integrative analysis.

With the growing attention to Congress charted in previous weeks, a large and diverse yet interactive group of scholars were studying Congress by the early 1970s. The focus on the reforms and the post-reform Congresses by these and emerging scholars provides a unique opportunity to gauge the capacity of a substantial and energized research community to bring insight and foresight to the study of a complex and dynamic political environment.

a. reforming Congress: the early to mid 1970s

***Zelizer, On Capitol Hill, Chapters 6-10***Dodd and Schott, Chapters 4, 5 and 6 (pages 212 – 228)*Sundquist, Decline and Resurgence of Congress: all is required in the ALD course

Strongly recommended in this seminar: Chapters 1, 7, 8, 14, 15, 16; on reserve

b. Looking Closer at Reforms and Changes

**Bruce Oppenheimer, “The Rules Committee: New Arm of Leadership in a Decentralized House,” Congress Reconsidered (CR), 1st edition, 1977**Lawrence Dodd, “The Expanding Roles of the House Democratic Whip System”

Congressional Studies 6: 27-56

Personal email question 1a: Outline the changes in the House Rules Committee and the House Democratic Whip system that occurred in the early to mid 1970s and their likely significance for the policymaking by the House.___Brandon___

**Catherine E. Rudder, “Committee Reform and the Revenue Process,” CR I**John Ellwood and James Thurber, “The New Congressional Budget Process” CR I

Personal email question 1b: Outline the reforms effecting revenue and budgetary processes and their likely significance for policymaking by Congress.__Keith___c. The Effect of Reforms on the House and Senate

***Norman Ornstein, Robert L. Peabody and David Rohde, “The Changing Senate: From the 1950s to the 1970s,” CR I

***Lawrence Dodd and Bruce Oppenheimer, “The House in Transition” CR I

Personal email question 1c: compare and contrast the reforms that occurred in the Senate versus the House, the ways in which they altered the two chambers, their likely longer-term impact on the two chambers, and the likely reasons for the contrasting character of reforms and outcomes in the two houses, as seen in 1977. ___Ross___

d. early scholarly assessments, explanations and forecasts

***Congress Reconsidered, 1st edition, Chs 11 (Sundquist), 12 (Jones), 13 (Fenno), 14 (Dodd)***Congress Reconsidered, 2nd edition, 1981: 12 (Oppenheimer) 16 (Sundquist), 18 (Dodd)

Personal email question 1d: Compare and contrast the explanations, assessments and forecasts provided by Sundquist and Dodd in 1977, in their 1977 discussions of the reform period; compare and contrast their expanded assessments and longer-term forecasts provided in 1981, together with that provided by Oppenheimer that year; finally, what implications did the arguments across these five essays – all written prior to the inauguration of Ronald Reagan in January of 1981 -- have for the likely long-term character of the post-reform Congress and the dilemmas, opportunities and challenges it would face.____Kevin______

**Joseph Cooper, “Congress in Organizational Perspective,” CR I.

Personal email question 1e : Outline the ways in which Cooper applies organizational theory to Congress and discuss the implications this theory has for how we make sense out of the reforms in the 1970s and, more generally, how we might anticipate and explain change in Congress across time.___Charlie____

e. a retrospective description and explanation

***Eric Schickler, Disjointed Pluralism, Chapter 5?

Personal email question 1f: Outline Schickler’s interpretation of the reforms of the 1970s, the empirical explanations he provides, and the implications his analysis has for our understanding of the reforms and their likely long-term impact and significance.__Rolda____

Collective Email Question (Potential Prelim Question): Briefly, outline the timing, content and general character of the major changes and reforms that occurred during the early to mid 1970s; discuss why they occurred with the sequenced timing that characterized them; identify and discuss the effects that reformers expected to flow from the reforms; and assess their overall likely effect on the politics, policy processes and power of Congress. In closing, how would you assess the significance of the reform era, when contrasted with the previous several decades of the Post War Era, what salutary implications does it have for our understanding of Congress, and what warnings and dilemmas does it portend?

Week Seven: The Post-Reform Congress and the Rise of Conditional Party Government: Feb 20

This week everyone will have a personal email question and also everyone will read Rohde, Parties and Leaders in the Postreform Congress, and answer a collective email question on it.

I. An Overview of the Story

***Zelizer, On Capitol Hill, Chs 11-12***Polsby, How Congress Evolves, 59-74, Chs 3, 4**Congress Reconsidered: The Story in Real Time:

1981, CR. 2nd edition, Prologue (pp 1-10)1985: CR, 3rd edition, Prologue (pp 1-10)1989: CR, 4th edition, Prologue (pp 1-9);1993: CR, 5th edition, Prologue (pp 1-10);

Email question a: What were the major changes and continuities that characterizedcontrol of Congress from the late 1970s to the early 1990s, election by election, when contrasted with the previous two decades or so of national politics; whatgoverning challenges, opportunities and constraints did they introduce into congressional politics as the postreform era unfolded; and how would you characterize Congress, themajority Democratic party, and their long-term prospects as they looked to the future at the beginning of the Clinton presidency?__Chris___

II. The Path to Competitive Partisanship in Congressional Elections

a. tracing change across congressional elections in real time: interpretations, explanations and implications

***1977: Congress Reconsidered (CR I), 1st edition, Chapter 3 (Mayhew and Cover); Fiorina, Congress: Keystone…., 1st or 2nd edition, Chapter 9

***1983/86: Dodd, “The Cycles of Legislative Change,” in Weisberg, Political Science: The Science of Politics; reprinted in Dodd, Thinking about Congress,

Chapter Five. The original version of this essay was presented at the 1983 APSA Convention.

**1989: CR, 4th edition: Chapter Five (Jacobson: see also 3rd edition essay); Chapter Six (Alford and Brady); ***1989: Fiorina, Keystone, 2nd edition, Chapter 13

***1993: CR, 5th edition, Chapter Five (Jacobson), Six (Alford and Brady)

Email assignment b: trace the shifting and conflicting causal interpretations of congressional elections from the early postreform Congress through the 1992 congressional elections. Assess the ways in which this conflict and confusion over the long-term causal factors at work in congressional elections contributed to the failure of the scholarly community to foresee the 1994 Revolution. Why do you believe confusion

existed and what are the implications for how we understand institutions and make (implicit or explicit) causal forecasts? ___Kevin______

b. shifts in the participation of marginalized groups: women

*1992: Elizabeth Adell Cook, Sue Thomas and Clyde Wilcox, eds., The Year of the Woman: Myths and Realities, 1994, Chapters 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 14

Email assignment c: In what ways did 1992 prove to be a breakthrough year for women in winning elections to Congress; why did this occur; what particular kinds of problems and issues did women face in election to Congress that they had to address in order to make major strides forward; how were they able to address these problems; finally, in what ways and to what extent do you believe that it makes a difference for women to increase there presence as elected members of Congress.___Rolda___

III. The Path to Polarized Institutional Politics

c. tracing change in the House of Representatives. 1977-1993

***1981: Initial Perspectives: CR II (Brady and Bullock), Ch 8***1982: Barbara Sinclair, “The Speaker’s Task Force in the Post-Reform House of

Representatives,” APSR, June 1981: 397-410. Reprinted in GlennParker, Studies of Congress

**1985: CR, 3rd edition, Chapter 12 (Collie and Brady)1989: Congress Reconsidered, 4th edition, Ch. 2 (D+O); Ch 12 (Sinclair)1993: CR, 5th edition, Chapters 2 (D+0), 10 (Sinclair), 13(Connor

and Oppenheimer

Email assignment d: What were the expectations for the House of Representatives as it emerged from the reforms of the 1970s; how and why did it change during the 1980s and early 90s, in terms of its broad governing processes, roles and actions; and where did it appear to be positioned in 1993 in terms of its long-term governance processes? __Brandon____.

d. tracing change in the Senate, in comparison and contrast with the House

***1981: Ornstein, “The House and Senate in a New Congress,” in Mann and Ornstein, The New Congress, pp 365-89

**1985: Congress Reconsidered, 3rd edition, Chapter 10 (Davidson) , 17 (Oppenheimer)**1989: Barbara Sinclair, The Transformation of the U. S. Senate, Chapter 11; on

reserve. The entire book is strongly recommended.***1993: CR, 5th edition, Chapter 1 (Ornstein, Peabody and Rohde); 11 (Smith)

Email assignment 1-e: What were the expectations for the Senate as it emerged from the reforms of the 1970s; how and why did it change during the 1980s and early 90s, in terms of its broad governing processes, roles and actions; to what extent did these changes

produce a ‘new Senate’ different from that of the Modified Committee Government era, how, why do you reach this conclusion, and with what significance; and where did the Senate appear to be positioned in 1993 in terms of its long-term governance processes?___Keith___.

IV. On the Cusp of Revolution: Interpretations, Explanations, Forecasts and Mea Culpas

a. the rise of Conditional Party Government in the House:

***1991: Rohde, Parties and Leaders in the Postreform Congress: all

b. parallelism and divergence in the Senate

***1992: Rohde, “Electoral Forces, Political Agendas, and Partisanship in the House and Senate,”in Roger Davidson, ed., The Postreform Congress, Chapter 2

c. mea culpas, final assessments and forecasts

***Dodd and Oppenheimer, CR IV: 1989, Chapter 18 (the mea culpa)Roger Davidson, The Postreform Congress, 1992

***Davidson, Chapter 1: “The Emergence of the Postreform Congress”***Paul Quirk, Chapter 15: “Structures and Performance: An Evaluation”

***Rudder, CR V; 1993, Ch 15: “Can Congress Govern?”***Dodd, CR V; 1993, Ch 18: “Congress and the Politics of Renewal: Redressing the

Crisis of Legitimation”. This is reprinted with commentary in Thinking about Congress

email question f. How did D+O, Davidson, Quirk and Rudder assess the performance of the postreform Congress, against past scholarly expectations and contemporaneous standards of judgment; what surprises did they identify, what disappointments, and what accomplishments; and, overall, almost two decades into the postreform era, did the emergence of the post-reform era appear to have mattered, for good, bad or both? On balance how would you characterize their assessments?___Ross_______

email question g: How did Dodd assess the postreform Congress, the dilemmas confronting it, the alternative paths facing it during the early Clinton presidency as it looked to the future, and the likely outcomes should the 103rd Congress fail to directly confront the seriousness of the situation confronting it?____Charlie_______

Collective Email Question: What does David Rohde mean by Conditional Party Government, how and why did it arise in the House of Representatives, what were the opportunities, challenges and governing significance associated with it, and under what conditions was it likely to continue and/or falter? To what extent does he see Conditional Party Government arising, or likely to arise and survive/collapse in the Senate in ways analogous to, or contrasting with the House. Finally, does Rohde see conditional party

government as a stable and institutionalized feature of Congress, looking to the future? Why, why not, and with what significance?

Week Eight: Taking Politics to the Extreme: The Republican Revolution and the Democratic Response: 1994-2014

***everyone should read **strongly recommended; should be read by those with email assignments on the topic *recommended as time permits; should be read by those with email assignments on the

topic

I. The Republican Revolution and Its Immediate Aftermath

**Zelizer, On Capitol Hill, Chapter 12 and Epilogue**Schickler, Disjointed Pluralism, 6 and Epilogue***D+O, “Revolution in the House,” CR 6th edition, Ch 2***Ornstein, Peabody and Rohde, “The U.S. Senate: Toward the Twenty-First Century,”

CR 6th edition, Chapter 1:

Personal Email 1a: What was the Republican Revolution, what was so ‘revolutionary’about it, how did it reshape the House of Representatives during the 104th Congress, what was its effect on the Senate during the 104th, and what was its immediate effect on Congress and national politics?____Chris_____

II. Assessments, Explanations and Mea Culpas

***Fiorina, Keystone Reconsidered, CR 7**Polsby, How Congress Evolves, 137-144 and Chapter Five**Aldrich and Rohde, Chapter 12, CR 7**D and O, Chapter Ch 17, CR 7***Dodd, Chapter 18 in CR 7 (or Chapter 10 in Thinking, which is the 2005 version)

Personal Email 1b: Looking back from the early 2000s, why did the Revolution occur,what was the significance of its occurrence for the theories and perspectives dominant in postwar congressional studies, and what were the emerging expectations about the immediate governing capacities of Congress in the wake of the Revolution, and what were the emerging perspectives on its longerterm processes of change?___Ross___

III. The Politics of Republican Governance

Congress Reconsidered, 8th edition (2005): ***Senate Politics, Ch 1**House Politics, Chs 2, 6 **Looking Forward; see “Conclusion” in Ch 18 (pp. 437-442) This is Chapter 10 in

ThinkingCongress Reconsidered, 9th edition (2009)

***House Politics, Ch 2, pp. 21-43; and Chapter 5

Personal Email 1c: What were the opportunities and challenges facing Republican governance in Congress during the first six years of the G.W. Bush Presidency, how and why did the party succeed and/or fail at address them, and why did the effort come to such an abrupt and unexpected end in 20006? What are the lessons to be learned about politics amid Conditional Party Government from this experience? ___Charles___

IV. The Democratic Counter-Surge, Economic Upheaval, and Quasi-Divided Government

Congress Reconsidered, 9th edition (2009):**The House: Chapter 2, page 35-49; and Chapter 5**Looking to the Future: Chapter 18

Congress Reconsidered, 10th edition (2013)***Sinclair, “The New World of U.S. Senators,” Ch 1***D+O, Chapter 2, pp 35-55***Jacobson, “Partisanship, Money, and Competition: Elections and the Transformation

of Congress since the 1970s”, Chapter 5***Skocpol and Williamson, The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican

Conservativism***Looking to the Future: Chapter 18

Personal email 1d: What were the opportunities and challenges facing Democrats with the success of their counter-surge in 2006, how and why did the party succeed

and/or fail at address them, why did the effort come to such an abrupt and unexpected end in 2010, and where does the party’s prospects at long-term governance stand as the 2014 elections

approach? What are the lessons to be learned about politics amid Conditional Party Government from the Democrats’ experience? What opportunities and challenges now face the Republicans and how might they learn from their own past experience and that of the Democrats?___Keith___

V. Parties and Leaders

**Congress Reconsidered, 6th edition (1997), Ch 10 (Sinclair)**Congress Reconsidered, 8th edition (2005), Chapters 9 (Schickler and

Pearson), 10 (Evans and Lipinski) **Congress Reconsidered, 9th edition (2009), Chapter 8 (Schickler and

Pearson)**Congress Reconsidered, 10th edition (2013), Chapter 7 (Smith and Gamm)

Personal Email 1e: Compare and contrast the behavior and roles that majority and minority party leaders have played in Congress over the past twenty years, under difference governing parties in the House/Senate, different electoral and divided/united government circumstances, different party leaders, etc.___Brandon____

VI. Committees

***Congress Reconsidered, 6th Edition , Chapter 8, Evans and Oleszek: “Congressional Tsunami? The Politics of Committee Reform.”

**Congress Reconsidered, 8th edition, 2005, Chapter 12, Josh Gordon, “The (Dis)Integration of the House Appropriations Committee.”

**Congress Reconsidered, 9th edition, 2009, Chapter 10, Aldrich and Rohde, Congressional Committees in a Continuing Partisan Era.”

***Congress Reconsidered, 10th edition, 2013,Chapter 8, Aldrich and Rohde, “Richard Fenno’s Theory of Congressional Committees and the Partisan

Polarization of the House.”

Personal Email 1f: Compare and contrast the ways congressional committees have operated in the period of extremist conditional party government with the ways they operated in the Committee Government era, particularly as portrayed in the work of Richard Fenno.___Kevin___

VII. Minorities: **Congress Reconsidered, 6th edition (1995), Chapter 4 (Swain)***Congress Reconsidered, 10th edition. (2013), Chapter 3 (Pearson)

Personal email 1g: Describe and assess the role that women have played in the period of extremist conditional party government and, in so far as possible, address the lessons that might be learned from women’s experience that could inform the leadership aspirations of racial and ethnic minorities.___Rolda___

VIII. Assessments, Explanations and Historical Perspectives

**Seth McKee, Republican Ascendancy in Southern US House Elections**Sean Theriault, Party Polarization in Congress**Keith Bentele and Erin O’Brien, “Jim Crow 2.0? Why States Consider and Adopt Restrictive

Voter Access Policies.” Perspectives on Politics, December 2013, Vol 11/#4,pp 1088-1116

**Cooper, “The Twentieth Century Congress,” Chapter 16, in CR 7; and Cooper, “The Modern Congress,” Ch 16 in CR 10

Collective Email Questions: Each student is assigned one of the following:

Collective Email Question 2a: How and why did Republicans gain ascendancy in Southern House elections over the past several decades; consider how this compares to or contrasts with characteristics of Southern politics discussed by Key, Gibson, and others, during the long period of a Solid Democratic South, prior to the Voting Rights Act of 1965; assess the longer-term staying-power and political significance to be attributed to this recent Southern GOP ascendancy, and then, finally, consider whether, how and why issues of ‘subnational authoritarianism’ historically associated with the American South could be returning there and also spreading elsewhere in the nation, based on the analysis

of Bentele and O’Brien. What longer-term significance might this have?__Keith, Charles, Chris___

Collective Email Question 2b: From a broader perspective, how and why does Theriault believe that party polarization emerged over the past several decades in Congress, what were the institutional factors in Congress enabling polarization to generate considerable policy deadlock, and what are the implications of his overall arguments for the future of party polarization and conditional party governance, looking to the next twenty years or so? Under what conditions should polarization continue and under what conditions should it recede, and with what implications?__Rolda, Ross,_

Collective Email Question 2c: How and why did Cooper (2001) see the operation and role of Congress changing across the 20th century, how does the experience of the past twenty years or so fit with, reinforce or challenge his interpretation, and, finally, what implications did Cooper (2013) attribute to the potential outcomes of the 2012 elections (writing prior to their outcome) for the longer-term power and role of Congress in American politics and governance? What is your overall assessment of Cooper’s perspectives for the 21st century Congress?___Brandon, Kevin

Week Nine: Spring Break – No Class

First (Preliminary) Research Design for the Course Due: Saturday, March 8th 5pm

Send to Professor Dodd and Class?

Part II: Understanding Congress Across The Postwar Era: A Topical Perspective

Week Ten. Legislative Careers in the Post-War Congress: Thinking Across time

I. Congressional Careers: Historical Variations in Careerism: The Contemporary Congress inPerspective

***Polsby, 1968. “The Institutionalization of the U. S. House of Representatives. APSR.62: 144-68.

**Fiorina, Rohde, and Wissel, 1975. “Historical Change in House Turnover.” In Congress in Change, edited by Norman J. Ornstein.

***Randall B. Ripley, 1969, Power in the Senate, Chapters 1, 2, 3***Hibbing, “Legislative Careers: Why and How We Should Study Them,” in

Legislatures: Comparative Perspectives on Representative Assemblies, edited by Gerhard Loewenberg, Peverill Squire and D. Roderick Kiewiet, 2002.

**Hibbing, “Legislative Institutionalization with Illustration from the British House ofCommons,” American Journal of Political Science 32: 681-712.

II. Career Norms, Member Types, Career Roles and Legislative Effectiveness:

*Review: Matthews, U. S. Senators and Their World. *Review Neustadt, “Politicians and Bureaucrats,” in Truman, 1965. *Roger Davidson, The Role of the Congressman***Herbert Asher, “The Learning of Legislative Norms,” APSA, 67 (1973), 499-513 **Uslaner, “Policy Entrepreneurs and Amateur Democrats in the House of

Representatives: Toward a More Party-Oriented Congress?” in Leroy Rieselbach, Legislative Reform, 1978

**Rohde, Ornstein and Peabody, “Political Change and Legislative Norms in the U. S. Senate, 1957-1974,” in Studies of Congress, edited by Parker, pp. 147-188

*Cooper and West, “The Congressional Career in the 1970s,” Ch 4 in CR 2, 1981 **Bullock and Loomis, “The Changing Congressional Career,” Ch 3 in CR 3, 1985 **David Canon, Political Amateurism in the U. S. Congress, Ch 3 in CR 4, 1989 ***Volden and Wiseman, “Legislative Effectiveness and Representation,” Ch 10 in CR

10, 2013

Email question 1a: Reflecting on the readings for this week, how might one use the theories, empirical findings and methods found in the study of congressional careers to design a comparative study of the careers of legislators and bureaucrats, informed in this in particular by Neustadt’s path-breaking essay?____Chris___

III. Career Cycles: Member Career Cycles and Their Importance

Dodd, Chapter 5, ThinkingHibbing, Congressional Careers, Chs 1, 2, 3, 7, 8Dodd, Chapter 6, Thinking

Email assignment 1b: how did Dodd envision the tension between actual versus desiredcareer cycles in “The Theory of Legislative Cycles” and why did he believe this tension would matter? More precisely, thinking across time, how and why did he believe this tension would wax and wane across decades in time, how would the waxing and waning of the tension interact with issues of reform and regime change in Congress?

Having spelled this theory out, what evidence does Hibbing provide that would seem to speak to this tension, as in Figures 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4 in Chapter Three of Congressional Careers; why does this evidence matter for how we think about and explain the reform upheavals of the 1970s?

Are there ways to improve on Hibbing’s measure of career cycles (or life cycles), as relates to Dodd’s theory, and what would be the empirical expectation across a century in time if one could construct a reasonable trans-historical measure of the waxing and waning of careerist tensions in the House, for example?___Keith___

IV. Studying Legislative Careers: Actions in the Public Sphere as seen through Content Analysis

***Mayhew, America’s Congress: Read Chs 3-6; Review the Introduction and Chs 1, 2 **Dodd and Schraufnagel, “Taking Incivility Seriously: Analyzing Breaches of

Decorum in the U. S. Congress (1891-2012).” in Scott Frisch and Sean Kelly, Politics to the Extreme: American Political Institutions in the 21st Century.

Email Assignment 1c/d/e: Detail the strategy of content analysis used by Mayhew in studying legislative careers and factional/group actions in America’s Congress, discuss the ways in which Dodd and Schraufnagel build on this strategy in their study of member incivility (D +S), highlight the kinds of findings about legislative careers and member behavior that flow from these three research efforts. In conclusion, and with some depth, discuss how you might build various strategies in your study of

c. heresthetic strategies and actions by Southern legislators (Keith);d. your study of evolving role of women and minorities in Congress (Rolda); ande. your study of parliamentary behavior regarding separatist movements in

Quebec, Scotland and Catalan, or some variation thereon.

V. Studying Legislative Careers: Qualitative Perspectives

*Review Hibbing, Congressional Careers; and Dodd, Ch 6 Thinking***David Price, The Congressional Experience, Third Edition, 2004, Chs 1-6, 8, 10, 12,

13, others strongly recommended **Cooper and Brady, “Institutional Context and Leadership Style: The House from

Cannon to Rayburn,” APSR June 1981: 411-425

**Charles O. Jones, “Joseph G. Cannon and Howard W. Smith: An Essay on the Limits of Leadership in the House of Representatives, Journal of Politics 30 (August 1968): 617-646

**Randall Strahan, “Dan Rostenkowski: A Study in Congressional Power,” In CR 5 (1993)

**Manley, “Wilbur Mills: A Study in Congressional Influence,” APSR 53: 442-464***Davidson, Hammond and Smock, eds., Masters of the House, Introduction, Chapter 7

(on Rayburn), Chapter 10 (on Tip O’Neill) and “Epilogue: Leaders Talk about Leadership: Gerald Ford, Richard Gphardt, and Newt Gingrich.”

***Strahan, Leading Representatives: The Agency of Leaders in the Politics of the U. S. House, Ch 1, 5 (on Newt Gingrich) and 6.

Email assignment 1f: In using content analysis to capture the shifting behavior of legislative leaders, it helps to have a qualitative grasp and theoretical vision of the kinds of career patterns that can characterize leaders and the kinds of actions that leaders may engage in. Based on the reading in this section, what kinds of and range of leadership behavior do you characterize modern leaders in the House of Representatives and in what ways can this awareness help shape your content analysis of member actions for your research design?___ Brandon___

VI. Theories of Careerist Aspirations, Shifting Historical Contexts, and the Changing Politics of Congress

***Rohde, “Risk-bearing and Progressive Ambition,” American Journal of Political Science 23 (1979): 1-26.

**Review: Dodd, Chapters 2 (“Quest) and 8 (“Congress and the Politics of Renewal”) ***Glenn R. Parker, Institutional Change, Discretion, and the Making of Modern Congress: An

Economic Interpretation, Chs 1 and 6; other chapters strongly recommended***Glenn R. Parker, Congress and the Rent-Seeking Society, Introduction and Chs 1, 2,and

Conclusion; other chapters strongly recommended.

Email assignment 1g: Outline the emerging theory of legislative goals developed in Parker’s two books, place this theory in the context of the broader argument in the literature (including Rohde and Dodd), and assess the plausibility and limits of the emerging vision seen across these works for the long-term character of careerism and legislative politics in Congress, looking to next forty years or so___Charles___

Collective email assignment : Looking beyond your personal email topic, what do you find the most intriguing works or arguments about careerism from this week, why, and with what implications for your research and/or how we understand Congress and other legislatures?

Week Eleven: Constituencies, Candidates, Representation and Elections.

Background Reading: The leading textbook in this area is Gary Jacobson,The Politics of Congressional Elections. I strongly recommend it

I. An Overview of Research in the Area

***Charles A. Stewart III, Analyzing Congress, 2nd edition: Chs 1, 4, 5, 6

II. Constituency Characteristics

a. The Marginality Thesis

**If you have not yet read these classics on the marginality puzzle and competition in elections, do so now: Mayhew, “Congressional Elections: The Case of the Vanishing Marginals,” Polity (1974), vol 6, no 3; Ferejohn, APSR 71 (March, 1977), and Fiorina, Keystone or “The Case of the Vanishing Marginals, APSR, 71 (March, 1977); Bullock and Scicchitano, “Partisan Defections and Senate Elections” in American Politics Quarterly, 10 (October 1982); the first three are also available in Parker, Studies of Congress. Finally, read Fiorina, Keystone Reconsidered, in CR 7, 2001.

b. The Deep Partisan Characteristics of Contemporary Districts

***Oppenheimer, “Deep Red and Deep Blue Congressional Districts in CR VIII

c. District Characteristics and Party Polarization

***McCarty, Poole and Rosenthal, Polarized America, Chs 3-5

Email question 1a: How and why are the characteristics of congressional districts related/not related to party polarization in the United States, and with what consequences?__Chris??

III. Constituencies, Campaigning and Representation

***Richard Fenno, Home Style: all, including in particular the “Epilogue” **Glenn Parker, Members of Congress and Their Constituents: The Home-Style

Connection,” in CR IV. **Richard Fenno, Going Home **Richard Fenno, Senators on the Campaign Trail

Email question 1b: Describe what Fenno means by ‘homestyle’ and its significance forour understanding of the politics, policymaking and power of Congress. How could thisbe turned into systematic empirical research, as illustrated by Glenn Parker. And finally,

of what relevance might ‘homestyle’ be to your study of insurgent independence movements arising in (or focused by) subnational regional assemblies, as in Scotland, Quebec and Catalan?___Ross___

Email question 1c: Discuss how Fenno applies his ‘homestyle’ perspective to the studyof minority legislators , the ways in which this is useful, different, less useful, and soforth, in the study of minority legislators. And assess how his work might be relevantto your longer term study of African American legislators in Congress. ___Rolda___

IV. Elections, Issue Politics and Representation

**Tracy Sulkin, Issue Politics in Congress: all

Email question d:What special perspectives does Sulkin provide us on the role issue politics can play in congressional elections and representation in Congress? Are there ways in which this might prove useful in you effort to understand how perspectives on policy issues change across time? Explain___Charles___

V. Elections, Money and Congressional Politics

**Jacobson, “Partisanship, Money, and Competition: Elections and the Transformation of Congress Since the 1970s, CR 10

**Bernhard and Sulkin, “Parties, Members, and Campaign Contributions in the House of Representatives,” in CR 10

***Currinder, Money in the House: all

Email question e: How is the pursuit of money by political parties changing the nature of campaigns, elections, career goals and leadership structures in the House of Representatives? Of what relevance might these changes be to your study of shifts in the nature and styles of the party leadership from 1972 forward?___Brandon___

VI. Patterns in Contemporary Congressional Elections

***Erikson and Wright, “Voters, Candidates, and Issues in Congressional Elections,” in CR 10

**Abramson, Aldrich and Rohde, Change and Continuity in the 2008 and 2010 Elections,Parts III and IV

***Skocpol and Williamson, The Tea Party and the Remaking of Repubican Conservatism: Introduction, Chs 1, 2, 5, 6, Epilogue.

Email question f: Describe the major changes and continuities in election politics in Congress over

the past six years or so, with special attention to the Tea Party, and consider the implications that the patterning and causal explanations of these changes might

have for how you are thinking about the Southern Realignment, dimensionality and dimension shift across historical eras in the study of the South, and the like.___Keith___

VII. The Reelection Incentive, Constant Campaigns and Policy Consequences

Arnold, The Logic of Congressional Action, Part OneAmy Gutmann and Dennis Thompson, The Spirit of Compromise: all

Email question g: Compare and contrast the perspectives that Arnold versusGutmann/Thompson provide on the role that elections and campaigning can have for Congress and policymaking. Take time to outline the general argumentsof each and then the kinds of policy consequences and institutional politics theyexpect to flow from their arguments. Are either or both useful/less useful to yourinterest in understanding policy entrepreneurship in Congress and conditions inwhich it can prove effective?___Kevin___

Collective Email Question: Looking beyond the material you reported on, briefly discuss the arguments, findings and perspectives you found most useful/least useful in the reading this week.

Week Twelve: Parties and Constituencies

I. Introduction***Charles Stewart, Analyzing Congress: Chapters 1,7, 8** Shepsle and Weingast, “Positive Theories of Democratic Institutions,” Legislative Studies Quarterly 19 (1994): 149-179.

Email 1a . As seen in Stewarts overview of the dominant perspectives in the field, what are the benefits of parties and committees of parties and committees in Congress, what are the best strategies for studying them, and what are the essential roles they play in legislative decision-making?___Keith___

Email 1b . As seen in Shepsle and Weingast, what are ‘positive theories of democratic institutions,’ and how is this perspective relevant to study of Congress?___ Chris___

II. Postwar Overview:

Smith and Gamm, CR 10Sinclair, Parties in the House, Quirk/BinderSmith, Parties in the Senate, Quirk/BinderAldrich, Perry and Rohde, CR 10Rohde, Quirk/Binder

Email 1c . Summarize the major changes that have occurred in Parties and Committees in Congress over the Post World War II era, assess why the changes have happened, and consider the implications of these changes for the policy responsiveness of Congress.___Rolda___

III. Committees

**Shepsle and Weingast, 1987, “The Institutional Foundations of Committee Power.” APSR, vol 81, pp. 85-127.

**Gilligan and Krehbiel. 1990. “Organization of informative committees by a rational legislature.” AJPS. vol 34, pp. 531-564***Cox and McCubbins, Legislative Leviathan: Party Government in the House,

Introduction and Part I: The Autonomy and Distinctiveness of Committees***Forrest Maltzman, Competing Principals: all*Cooper, The Origin of the Standing Committees: Review

Email 1d. What is the argument for committees as central, necessary and powerful institutions in their own right, separate from parties, what is C and M critique of committee government and subsystem literature, in Part 1; how does Maltzman complicate versus compliment the argument of C and M, and do you believe he moves us forward towards a balanced view of the relative roles of committees and parties,? Finally, how would Aldrich Perry and Rohde in CR 10 fit in with support versus challenge to the arguments of C and M. Where does all of this leave us with respect to thinking about committees. Is their time past: why or why not?

III. Parties

**Aldrich, Why Parties?**Krehbiel,1993, “Where’s the Party? British Journal of Political Science, vol. 23, pp. 235-266:**Krehbiel,1999“Paradoxes of Parties in Congress.” Legislative Studies Quarterly, vol 24, pp. 31-64

Email 1e: Outline Aldrich’s argument for the necessity of parties in democracies, and detail the challenge that Krehbiel’s work would pose to that of Aldrich. Who’s right? ___Ross___

***Cox and McCubbins, Legislative Leviathan: Party Government in the House:Part 2 and Part 3 **McCarty, Poole and Rosenthal, Polarized America

Email Assignment 1f : What is their theory of Party Organization, in Part 2, and how well does their analysis of parties as Floor Coalitions in Part 3 support Part 2? Compare and contrast with Polarized America, McaCarty, Poole and Rosenthal? ___ Charlie___

***Cox and McCubbins, Part 4 and 5 of Leviathan**Schickler and Rich, “Controlling the Floor: Parties as Procedural Coalitions in the House,”

AJPS 41 (October 1997): 1340-1375**Cox and McCubbins, “Toward a Theory of Rules Changes: Assessing Schickler and Rich’s

Evidence,” AJPS 41 (Octber, 1997): 1376-1386**Schickler and Rich, “Party Government in the House Reconsidered: A Response to Cox

and McCubbins,” AJPS 51 (Ocboter 1997): 1387-1394.**Schickler and Pearson, “Agenda Control, Majority Party Power, and the House Committee on Rules, 1937-65.” Legislative Studies Quarterly, 34 (2009): 455-491.

Email question 1g : What is the argument of C and M with respect to the ways in which parties can be seen as procedural coalitions, and how compelling is their argument? Their weaknesses. How well do they withstand critique of Schickler and Rich? Of Schickler and Pearson? What are the implications of your conclusions for understanding the primacy of parties in the House?__Brandon___

Collective Email Question : Is it useful to think of swings between Committee Government and Party Government, after reading the material in this course from Week Two forward, or should we conclude that Party Government is the dominant form of congressional governance and that Congress simply swings from strong to weak party government. In answering this question, also address what you would mean by party versus committee government.

Week Thirteen: The House versus the Senate

I. An Overview

***Baker, House and Senate: Read Introduction, Chs 1, 2, 3, 6, 7; others recommended ***Fenno, Congressmen in Committees, Chs 5,6 ***Oppenheimer, “Let’s Begin with the Senate,” U. S. Senate Exceptionalism, Ch. 1 ***Fenno, “Looking for the Senate: Reminiscences and Residuals,” U. S. Senate

Exceptionalism, Ch 2.***Rohde, “Seeing the House and Senate Together: Some Reflections on

Research on the Exceptional Senate,” U.S. Senate Exceptionalism, Ch 17

Email assignment 1a: How and why do the House and Senate differ and what implications do

the differences have for future research on Congress?__Rolda___

II. Patterns of Bicameral Change and Contemporary Practice

***Alford and Hibbing, “Electoral Convergence in the U. S. Congress,” in Oppenheimer,

U. S. Senate Exceptionalism, Chapter 6 ***Sinclair, “The New World of U. S. Senators,” CR 10, if you have not read

previously ***Dodd and Oppenheimer, “The House in a Time of Crisis,” CR 10, if you have not

read it

Review or read the following, if you have not done so previously:

**Fenno, “The Internal Distribution of Influence: The House” AND Huitt, “The Internal Distribution of Influence: The Senate” in Truman, Congress and

America’s Future **1981: Ornstein, “The House and Senate in a New Congress,” in Mann and Ornstein, The New Congress, pp 365-89 **Carmines and Dodd, “ Bicameralism in Congress: The Changing Partnership,” in CR III, 1985.

Email assignment 1b: Based on these readings and others you have been exposed to in his course, in what ways are the House and Senate becoming more similar/dissimilar, if any? Why? With what consequences?__Chris___ II. The Modern Senate

***Lee and Oppenheimer, Sizing Up the Senate: all

***Sinclair, “The 60-Vote Senate,” in U.S. Senate Exceptionalism, Ch 12 ***Koger, “Filibustering and Parties in the Modern Senate,” CR 10, Chapter 9 **Sellers, “Winning Media Coverage in the U.S. Senate,” in U.S. Exceptionalism, Ch 8 **Lee, “Representational Power and Distributive Politics: Senate Influence on Federal

Transportation Spending, in U.S. Senate Exceptionalism, Ch 14 **Baker, “Examining Senate Individualism versus Senate Folkways in the Aftermath of

the Clinton Impeachment,” in U. S. Senate Exceptionalism.

Email assignment 1c: Based on these readings, in what ways is the Senate a distinctive andintriguing legislative assembly and how do its distinctive attributes affect the special roles it can play as a representative and policymaking institution?___Keith___

III. The Modern House

***Aldrich and Rohde, “The Logic of Conditional Party Government: Revisiting the

Electoral Connection,” in CR VII.***Aldrich and Rohde, “Congressional Committees n a Continuing Partisan Era,”

inCR IX.

***Dodd and Oppenheimer, “Congress and the Emerging Order: Assessing the 2000

Elections,” in CR VII.***Dodd and Oppenheimer, Chapter 18 in CR 9 and 10.

Email 1d: What do Aldrich and Rohde mean by Conditional Party Government, as a form

of sustained governance and policymaking analogous to Committee Government in earlier times; what is the Dodd/Oppenheimer critique; where do things stand in light of the past eight to ten years of upheaval in Congress and the economy with respect to this debate; and what as a consequence to you see as the strength and weaknesses of Conditional Party Government as a sustained governing model for Congress. How might the theory be revised?___Charlie___

Review or read if you have not yet done so:

**Cooper and Brady, “Institutional Context and Leadership Style: The House from

Cannon to Rayburn,” APSR 75 (1981): 411-425 **Rohde, Parties and Leaders in the Post-reform House: all

**Cox and McCubbins, The Legislative Leviathan

IV. Seeing the House and Senate through the Lens of Party Polarization

***Sean Theriault, Party Polarization in Congress: all***Sean Theriault, The Gingrich Senators: all

Email assignment 1e: Outline the broad argument about party polarization thatTheriault presents in Party Polarization, discuss the ways in which patternsof polarization are similar/different for the House and Senate, identifythe reasons for the similarity/difference, and assess the implications forour understanding of the functioning of Congress as an institution.__Kevin__

Email assignment 1f: Outline the broad argument Theriault presents in Gingrich Senators about polarization and policymaking in the Senate, detail how and why the House of Representatives plays a critical role in his argument, assess how convincing your

find his arguments to be, and, finally, thinking about congressional politics acrosstime, could Theriault be pointing towards some broader causal argument thatmight help us understand and explain change in Congress and policymaking

acrosstime? Might there be some way to build on Theriault in other time periods in

ways that could turn his argument into a more general theory?___Brandon__

V. A Sensemaking Perspective on American Bicameralism: Towards a Theory that canEncompass the Senate as well as the House

***Dodd, “Making Sense Out of Our Exceptional Senate: Perspectives and Commentary” in Oppenheimer, U. S. Senate Exceptionalism. Ch 11 in Thinking***Paulina Rippere, “Sensemaking in the Senate.”

Email assignment 1g: How and why do the House and Senate differ and what implications do

these differences have for how we understand and explain House/Senate behavior, as seen from a sensemaking perspective? What implications does a sensemaking argument have for research on Congress, as seen for example in Paulina Rippere’s study of networking? How and why does her work challenge the Gingrich Senators argument, and how might it lead to similar challenges of other works? Might a sensemaking perspective bring added clarity to the study of other kinds of legislatures, such as parliaments? Might it help distinguish among legislatures in important ways, as for example helping to discuss similarities and differences between the insurgent nationalist movements within regional parliaments in Canada, Scotland and Catalan?__Ross__

Collective Email Assignment: Aside from the work you reported on this week, what other works do you find most intriguing and potentially useful to you in your own research agenda?

Week Fourteen: Politics and Policy

I. Introduction

Stewart, Analyzing Congress, Ch 9.Congressman Lipinski, Ch 15 in CR 9

II. The Contemporary Policy Process

***Sinclair, Unorthodox Lawmaking: all**Adler and Wilkerson, Congress and the Politics of Problem Solving:

Everyone read at least Chs 1 and 10; Kevin read across the book

What is the nature of the contemporary ‘unorthodox’ processes of lawmakingin Congress and to what extent does the emergence of new policy processes divertCongress from or facilitate its engagement with policy problem solving? What is the significance of your answer for how we understand Congress, and particularly for understanding the current polarized Congress? Kevin

III. Enacting Public Policy

**Binder, Stalemate,***Howell, Adler, Cameron and Riemann, “Divided Government and the

Legislative Productivity of Congress, 1`945-94,” Legislative Studies Quarterly 25 (2000): 285-312

Dodd and Schraufnagel, Chapter 17 in CR 10?Dodd and Schraufnagel, “Congress and the Polarity Paradox: Party Polarization,

Member Incivility and Enactement of Landmark Legislation, 1891-1994.” Congress and the Presidency, 39 (2012): 109-132.

What are the central controversies in the literature on landmark policy enactment,why might they matter, and where do you see the extent research on these issuespointing us in terms of issues of party system polarization? future research and theoreticalunderstanding? How might your answers be important in thinking about heresthetics (especially of the Southern variety) across decades in time? Keith

IV. Congress, the Bureaucracy and Public Policy

*Theodore Lowi, “ American Business, Public Policy, Case-Studies, and Political Theory,” World Politics 16 (July, 1964): 677-715; and “Four Systems of

Policy, Politics, and Choice,” Public Administration Review 32 July/August, 1972): 298-310.

*Franklin and Ripley, Congress, the Bureaucracy, and Public Policy, (various editions), Ch. 1, 2, 3, 8.

In what ways do public policies and policy proposals different, in terms of

the ‘type’ of policy involved, and how are these differences important in termsof the policy processes they help to generate? Rolda

V. Contemporary Issues in Public Policy

i. The Politics of Judicial Nominations

Binder and Maltzman, Ch 11 in CR 10

What are the most important characteristics of the politics of judicialnominations and their importance for our understanding to Congress? Chris

ii. Presidents and War-making

Ch 14 in CR 9 and Ch 11 in CR 10 (both by Kriner and Howell)

What are the arguments that Kriner and Howell put forward with respect to Congress, presidents and warmaking and how do they explore

these arguments using experimental designs? What implications might the use of experimental designs have you’re your work on the politics of gay rights? (Possibly talk with Charles Dahan on this.) Charles

iii. Fiscal Politics and Policy Crisis

Chs 12 (Rudder) and 18 (D+O) in CR 9Chs 13 (Thurber), 14 (Rudder) and 18 (D+O) in CR 10

What are the core problems that underlie the fiscal politics of Congress and the associated crises of the contemporary era, why do they

exist, and what solutions might be available to address them? How significant are these crises for Congress, the nation, and the future of American politics, if they remain unaddressed? Finally, how might the politics of fiscal crises inform the study of nationalist independence movements in places like Scotland, Canada and elsewhere? Ross

VI. Political Ambitions and the Pursuit of Policy Goals: Final Perspectives

Dodd, “Congress as Public Mirror,” Chapter 1 in ThinkingDodd, “ReEnvisioning Congress,” Chapter 10 in ThinkingLee, Beyond Ideology: Politics, Principles, and Partisanship in the U. S. Senate

How do the works by Dodd and Lee broaden our understanding of political ambitions of legislators and what implications do the arguments have for our

understanding of policymaking in Congress and our appreciation of the role of Congress in the broader political system? Brandon